Para Car seriously useable?

[VP959]

VP959, isn't this *exactly* what the "experimental" category is for? So that the CAA can issue a Permit to Fly to anything that doesn't fall within established design categories?

We usually associate a PtF with LAA-type homebuilds (kitbuilt or plans) but the CAA can also issue these directly, thus bypassing the criteria the LAA has established for itself.

There is footage of the aircraft flying, so does it have a Certificate to Test?

Yes, it would be, if there were such a thing as an Experimental category in the UK (there isn't, unfortunately, although life would be a great deal easier if there were).

AFAIK this particular aircraft has not been given a Permit to Fly by exemption, I'm not at all sure that the CAA have ever done this for a type that has never been approved, although I think they do have the power to do so under the ANO if they wish.

Normally a Permit to Fly is issued for the following reasons (excuse the outdated language - the basics remain pretty much the same):

1) The aircraft is a type that is no longer supported by a Type Certificate holder and has no means of being maintained and serviced to the requirements of a C of A. This applies to some of the ex-production types that are operated on CAA PtFs (and some legacy aircraft, like a few Cubs, on LAA PtFs, I believe)

2) The type is an ex-military or historic type that never held a Type Certificate, but was approved against a military airworthiness code, an obsolete code or perhaps no code at all in the case of a few vintage types. Again, these aircraft can't be maintained or serviced to C of A requirements, so are issued with a CAA PtF

3) Microlights, whether factory built by an CAA A1 Approved manufacturer, or whether kit or homebuilt, are issued with a PtF by either the BMAA or LAA. The reason is that they are not designed or approved to C of A requirements, so again cannot meet those maintenance and servicing requirements.

4) Homebuilt light aircraft that are not microlights are issued with a PtF by the LAA, for exactly the same reasons as above. They have a greater degree of restriction placed on them in terms of servicing and maintenance than microlights, including the need for some licensed engineer oversight for certain tasks.

The Skycar cannot be flying under B Conditions for test, as Parajet is not an A1 Approved (or EASA approved) manufacturer, so cannot issue a Permit to Test under B Conditions. Similarly, the BMAA (the delegated approval body that is trying to obtain a basis for approval for them), do not have the authority (at the moment) to issue a Permit to Test under their B conditions as their Exposition does not include aircraft of over 450kg MTOW. Anyway, a Permit to Test wouldn't normally be issued until the structural and other compliance demonstration work has been completed. At the moment, the CAA haven't agreed the basis for approval, AFAIK, so this compliance work cannot have been done yet.

Even if a Permit to Test was in place under someone's B Conditions authority, or, perhaps, an extraordinary CAA exemption, then the aircraft would still have to be registered and the pilot would need to hold the appropriate licence. There is no trace of any registration for it AFAICS.

To be honest, despite all this chat about legal stuff, I admire them for just getting on and doing it. If they'd stopped to get all the paperwork done beforehand they'd probably have died of old age before getting underway. More power to their elbow!

VP